Google Ads

Hey there! We're an open community that values free speech and free thinking on all topics. If that sounds like you, then login or register. It's free and easy. You can also connect with your FaceBook account. Or you can just comment on anything you find of interest, but your comments will then have to wait for moderation before they show.

Threaded View

One of the dangers of Lexicons and dictionaries is that IF they define a word by their own personal interpretation of it's biblical usage or the consensus interpretation of it's biblical usage, it then becomes an acceptable definition of the word. Its a cyclical error which becomes embedded in future lexicons. Joe and I had touched on this a little a few months back.(or was it you). Thus can we really trust lexicons and dictionaries in every instance and circumstances if they are compiled by fallible, subjective men?.

Excellent points. I agree completely. Here is my favorite example of a lexicon infected with an idiosyncratic and arbitrary theology:

Strong's 3952 parousia {par-oo-see'-ah}
Meaning: 1) presence 2) the coming, arrival, advent 2a) the future visible return from heaven of Jesus, to raise the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up formally and gloriously the kingdom of God

Who knew that the lexicon of secular Koine Greek would be so densely packed with literalistic futurist Christian theology???

Yes indeed, we can all be sure that the word "parousia" had that specific meaning in the common language of first century Greeks! Nice "lexicon," eh?

Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32

There would seem to be no reason to add "full number" as a 'special interpretation' other than to support the interpretation of it's use in this verse.

You may be correct, but there could be other aspects of the context that suggest the idea of "full number." I need to look more closely at it.

Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32

My personal belief is that this interpretation is the 'only' interpretation that fits with the very context of the chapter and with the surrounding chapters especially since Paul includes (and almost focuses on the 'jealousy factor' that would be used to call some of the remaining elect within the end generation of national Israel.

The summary verses of 28-32 and it's emphasis of NOW, (in 60 AD and referring to after the filling of God has been coming into the nations. Of course this principle can and does continue even though 'national Israel' of the mosaic covenant and genealogical seed has ended. But the dispensational teaching that 'all "national" Israel will be saved' is a great hinderence.

Agreed. Especially in light of the reference to "their pleroma" (speaking of the pleroma of divine blessings Israel had from God) mentioned in just a few verses earlier in Romans 11:12.

Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32

Question. When were sins removed from 'Israel"

At the same time the "sins" were removed from the world. Christ the Lamb of God took away the sins of the world at the cross.

Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32

Question 2. What do you think/feel/believe would be a better meaning for this context; especially in view of the doctirnal precedents Paul set forth in the Previous chapters of Romans AND how he has defined "all Israel" to mean those of the covenant of Mercy, Grace, Election... including those of the nations recieving Mercy.

I don't think there is a better translation than the divine fulness of Christ flooding the nations as it had Israel. I think more study on this particular point will be fruitful so I can get a more precise articulation.

Thanks for bringing this up.

Richard

Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.

Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?